Tom M,
I don't think you intended this, but someone reading your last post might conclude that JakaB and I would rather just play the game, that we don't/can't mix thought and leisure, that we exhibit the pop mentality w.r.t. golf course architecture, and that we don't care too much about it. After reading your post it sounds like you are saying "Alas, not everyone can be enlightened as we experts wish them to be", but again I hope that's not what you're really saying.
I won't speak for JakaB (could anyone?), but I can tell you that my appreciation for golf course architecture is closely intertwined with my passion for playing the game. And you can't cleanly separate one from the other. Quite simply, great course architecture above all else serves to make playing the game more interesting, ideally for all levels of play. And you better believe I seek out and appreciate courses whose design and features (not to mention things like setting and routing which set the context in which the round will be played) make playing the game more interesting.
But--and this was my point in my last post--I am reluctant to let my enjoyment of playing the game be hampered by focusing too much on course features that I don't like or what I think "could have" or "should have" been done. And that is the danger as a student of GCA. This is especially true in tournament play, where it really behooves me to judge how the course features will affect my strategy, but not to evaluate them as good or bad architecture. I don't mind reflecting on courses I've played and evaluating them and their features, but during play I try to read everything relevant to strategy, appreciate what is there, look for the good and focus on the interests and strengths of the course (no matter how difficult they might be to find!).
"Today we love our fast food, our favorite TV shows are reality shows, our radio shows combine humor and shock, very few read, very few vote, life is pretty good, we have so many leisure activities, we expect to be entertained--thinking and leisure really aren't conducive."--Agreed, but just be careful, Tom, whose name you attach closely to a statement like that. You'd have to know someone pretty well to attach his name to that.
"Golf architects of yesterday had it much easier, less competition, it was simpler day, I don't think they cared if they satisfied ChrisB or JakaB..."--Tom, I'd be interested in reading, based on what you know about me and what I have posted, of what you think I need out of golf/architecture to be satisfied. Please answer, because I'd like to know what impressions I am creating.
If you are really interested in exchanging ideas and increasing knowledge about an interesting subject (which I know you are), then I'd rather see you ask questions and get thoughtful answers from me instead of making assumptions, making generalizations, and slapping on labels.